Abstract
Objective
This study aims to evaluate the relationship between the humeral head version and the cartilage- or bone-based glenoid version measurements on magnetic resonance imaging and to evaluate the usability of the glenoid articular surface and metaversion to determine the humeral head version.
Methods
Magnetic resonance imaging slices of 182 patients were evaluated in this retrospective study. Bone- and cartilage-based glenoid version angles, humeral head version angles, and metaversion angles were measured by 3 researchers. All measurements were made twice, with an interval of 2 months. Interrater and intrarater reliability were evaluated.
Results
The mean glenoid version angle was calculated as −3.58 ± 4.09° when measured from bone tissue and −5.79 ± 4.3° when measured from cartilage tissue. A non-linear correlation was determined between the measurements taken from bone and cartilage tissue for the glenoid version angle (r=0.423). No statistically significant difference was determined between the inter- and intraobserver measurements (P=.223). No statistically significant difference was determined in the inter- and intrarater reliability for the humeral head version angle and metaversion angle measurements. A statistically significant relationship was observed between the humeral head version and the mean glenoid version measured from bone (P=.019). A negative correlation was observed between the bone-based glenoid version and the humeral head version (P=.034).
Conclusion
In cases in which the humeral metaphysis can be evaluated, metaversion is a good guide for the humeral head version. In cases in which the metaphysis cannot be evaluated, the glenoid version is a good option for determining the humeral head version. Further studies are needed to determine the humeral head version relative to the glenoid version.
Cite this article as:
Kılıç E, Deveci A, Özdemir G, Sözmen Cılız D, Bingöl O, Yaşar NE. Are metaversion and glenoid version useful in determining the humeral head version. Arch Basic Clin Res. 2024;6(1):32-37.
